I haven't read much of your other posts, so I am not sure if you really meant your reply to be in 'condescending' tone or were genuinely in doubt of my and non-Europeans intellect.You could perhaps also be under the impression that my handle is misspelt due to not knowing the language (English) well enough! Don't mistake simplicity of a posts with naivety.

I know enough about Western society, their make up and quite a few of its intellectual stalwarts including those you have talked about, and more. Also, I am not as much a dawn fool, as you may have liked to believe, to not realise the common links that unite Europe/Western World. Even a cursory glance at these societies and its common cultural underpinnings, from Greco-Roman or even the remotely remembered Celtic times would reveal that what's Europe today isn't just bound by geography or Indo-European (or Indo-Germanic) language family alone. There's certainly more to it. For instance, Hungarian, Finnish being very different from Germanic/Romanesque languages still belong to the common European pantheon. A quick read of Bertrand Russell, Samuel Huntington, Ayn Rand can easily acquaint anyone to this.

My post was very specific to the article in question and therefore, was as applicable for British society. And, for God's sake, don't lecture others on West being a monolith. It's not and it has never been; there are enough sub-cultures and on some aspects seemingly minor differences also can go a long way in how each Western country perceives its own set of values vis-a-vis others. If I were in any less foreigner-friendly country, I wouldn't even have posed those questions knowing well the acrimonous and ill-read responses they'd have invited. British society is indeed much different on matters of identity, pride and its treatment of rest of humanity. Britain banned slavery at least a century and a half before other developed countries thought of the act as savage. The threads of tolerance, liberty, freedom or speech etc. - that you have waxed eloquently about - is something Western countries have embraced with varying degrees of ease. Britain, I regard as one of the best. So, you don't have to foreclose my questions as aimed at West and not British in particular.

With changing times, the indices and barometers to define acceptable behaviour also keep changing. It's the same Britain that was so noble and committed in WW-II years where people today run in glee to rip a wrecked ship's contents if it sails asunder and meets an ill fate near your backyard. It's a country that Churchill could barely recognise if he were to time travel now - well, not because he could see lot more of Black/Brown people on the roads, but because his own 'native' Britons have swayed quite a lot from their hoary past.

It is in these changed circumstances that I was wondering what it means to be an Asian living in Britain to feel 'assimilated'. If you think of values such as Freedom of speech, right to conscience, individualism as entirely Western concept and a person like me ought to have come from some tribal group of dancing pagans, you are drawing a delusional understanding. Not all migrants from Non-Western countries come from a repressed despot state of squalor, renegade social structure and ignorance. Quite a lot of them come from places whose values could have easily fitted with Victorian Britain than contemporary Britain; that's the unfortunate truth.

Terms like 'Assimilation', 'Melting Pot', and ‘Synthesis’ have varying connotations. In any South American country, all Portuguese and Spanish migrants are technically assimilated because they have made it theirs, regardless of whether native Americans think so; more assimmilated also becasue they inter-married and created a new crop of population. The Jews living in India for nearly 2000 years are(were) also a very 'assimilated' community, though many migrated to Israel after its formation, out of their own accord. Well, they did not have to throw away their unique identity to feel 'assimilated' for all those centuries they lived in India. Indians never made that a prerequisite to feel as one people. Britons, when they left India in 1947, after nearly 200 years of active occupation, only numbered under 100,000. very few Anglo-Indians left beind, much unlike the Portuguese/Spanish model in South America. They didn't inter-marry, perhaps because they were racist (at that time), but did it help India retain its identity; may be yes! What version of assimilation would Britons seek of their migrants, is the question I was alluding to. When exactly does an 'enclave' of migrants become seen as 'ghettos' instead ?

Indeed the first world do have all the rights to have full sovereignty on their nations that’s not the issue here

Whether east Europeans or any other migrants the relationship between them and the UK or any other state is give and take where both sides gain

Let’s not forget that migrants do the hard dirty risky jobs that native British don’t want to take up and also they care for millions of elderly and disabled native citizens who their offspring’s didn’t want them

1.regarding to the geographical discussion, please notice that for centuries west part of poland and Czech republic was actually part of Germany. Region like Silesia was under strong cultural and economical german influence. People there are more linked with German than with polish.

2. I live temporarily with chinese family and I can't tell that they are good assimilated with English. They have been live here for 7 years, and their english is very average, they have not any english friends. I am writing this beacause I can't imagine that kind of situation if I stay here for a long time.

@Fabio CI might be beside the point. That is probably because it's not really clear what point you are making. Unfortunately all I can see in this king tide of bald assertion is something about wishing to protect / defend an 'unbroken' and 'proud' Western cultural heritage. If that is the point you are making, then I suggest that one motif in the history of European thought and culture is openness to non-European culture through longstanding contact, and incorporation of that into 'new' European ways of doing things, whether this be during Ottoman days, contact with the Far East, later European empires that extended into Asia and the Americas (leaving aside the political legacy of those empires), and recent immigration to and within Europe. It is that openness– by no means ever-present, and often subjected to attack, but still there– that is one of the real strengths of European and Western society and culture. To my mind, the development of Europe has never been hermetically sealed against outside influence, and is for the better for having not been so.I might still be beside your point. If so, then make your point clear by constructing an argument.

The Europe we are all used to thinking about, of neat little nation-states with homogeneous populations of ethnically, culturally and lingüistically similar citizens, is in fact a very recent phenomenon. It was created between 1848 (a convenient date) and 1945 (with some later exceptions). It has, in fact, involved terrible episodes of ethnic cleansing and internecine wars to achieve the "ideal" of the homogeneous nation-state.Prior to the rise of nationalism, most people didn't consider themselves as pertaining to a nationality (French, German, Italian, etc...) Even within historically nationalistic peoples like the French and English, there was far more loyalty to the Crown (who might, in later years, be Dutch or German) and to a religion (French Huguenots fighting for the English) or a region. In a time when land transportation was so difficult that most people died in the parish of their birth without ever leaving the county, it is easier to identify oneself as a Breton, a Catalan or a Florentine than a Frenchman, a Spaniard or an Italian.In fact, prior to the First World War, the standard Italian dialect (Tuscan) was almost unintelligible to the vast majority of "Italians".Furthermore, no one in the 16th century (or any other after the Renaissance) had any trouble identifying themselves or others as "Europeans". Europe stopped where Russia and the Ottomans started, though a certain exception were made for the Greeks. The Poles, Bohemians, the Baltic States, were all part of Europe. The Wallachians, Moldavans, Ghegs, Vlachs and other peoples under Ottoman suzerainty were not considered "europeans" in a cultural sense. This only changed in the late 19th, early 20th century.Thus, the large scale movements of people and the mixing of populations into heterogeneity is merely a return to how things used to be in Europe a few hundred years ago. There is nothing new to it and it should be celebrated. The more it happens, the more "European" you will all feel.

Fabio C, that makes no sense whatsoever. I havent stated any opinion on the movement of Poles, or the problems facing Europe. I merely stated that applying a simplistic amero-centric right wing prism is meaningless.
The movement of people throughout Europe is (and, assuming peace is maintained, always will be) based on economics.
This is the basis of my objection to crudely applying political interpretations to the issue. (this also explains why I objected to Muggeridge's comment).

James, the problems Europe face in modern times are deeper than your simplistic and generic anti-american left-wing label can suggest, and have wider implications to our future as a proud people that have a wealth of achievments to honour and protect, then you would care to admite.

Fabio C - care to elaborate? cs96 has viewed the immigration / emigration of Europeans through the prism of the the traditional talking points of the right wing side of the US culture wars. What did I fail to understand?

cs96: 'Britain is a genocidal liberal country like much of Europe. Low birthrates, high abortions, high feminism, high paganism, high divorce rates and they compensated for their moral failings by the typical liberal socialist guilt'

Amazing how the American culture wars and right wing theocratic belief system can impinge on literally any debate. To insinuate that paganism and feminism is in any way related to European immigration is frankly bizarre.

There are many reasons why the POLISH are returning to their own country. The first reason according to my conversations with Polish people is the very low standard of British education for the general population. Secondly the poor standard of housing and the crime rate. Thirdly that the English are very hostile to all foreigners. According to my Polish contact at least 50% will leave in the next two years. This will probably intensify because the British currency has depreciated by 25% in the last year against the Polish currency. British employers will suffer the consequences of this sudden withdrawal of cheap temporary foreign labour.

Free labour markets or not, the one fundmental issue is the opportunity to learn/ improve their English (whose English grammar is of a higher standard than most English). That is why they will arrive in the UK in 2013 in far greater numbers than into Italy or Spain.

I was surprised by the article's assertion that Romanians and Bulgarians have stronger links to Spain and Italy. As outlined below, I think many Romanians looking to go abroad will be drawn to the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Britain and Irish supermarkets may soon be supplementing borscht with Romanian “mamaliga” (a delicious corn-based starch served instead of potatoes) that Italians call “polenta” as well as “brinza”, a tasty cheese made with sheep’s milk and “cascaval”, a milder cheese.

I worked in Romania as an expatriate from 1990 to 1997 and still have close connections to the country. I have also visited Bulgaria, but will concentrate on Romania in this post.

Romanian is a Latin-based language, not a Slavic language, so French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are easy for Romanians to understand.

What surprised every one of my client (I was with a major firm of Chartered Accountants) was the very high level of English spoken in Romania and that it was spoken so extensively. Just as English is not that much of a stretch for Francophones, English is not that far a stretch from French for the "little Paris of the East".

Under Ceaucescu, Russian was not the second language. Instead, English supplemented French as the second language of the country. Even in 1990, I believe English was the second language most people had learned.

Since 1992, Bucharest has had an English language newspaper (now daily), "Nine O'Clock" that does a very credible job of reporting both local and international news. Many Romanians read it to practice and improve their knowledge of English.

I realize that Romanians coming to the United Kingdom can stay on a shorter term basis than immigrants who cross the ocean to Canada; but I believe they will be a welcome group of arrivals.

Also, as the last king of Romania, Mihai, is related to Queen Victoria, there is a strong affinity for Britain among many Romanians.

In Canada, we have a large number of Romanian immigrants and now new citizens. They are considered to be a very welcome immigrant group. They have shown they work hard, save their money, buy and improve homes and bring the best of their culture (my Romanian friends enjoy the symphony and opera [and the Toronto International Film Festival] and make wonderful wine at home) while adapting to Canada. While many are in Toronto and Montreal, more and more are moving to smaller cities as the quality of life can be better there and there does not appear to be the same need to congregate in neighbourhoods.

For example, with one couple, the husband's English was weaker than his wife's English. So they resolved to address the situation by speaking English at home and now both are fully bilingual, integrated to Canada and are more interested in Canadian politics than what is happening in Bucharest. If you visited their home, you would think it like many other Canadian homes. Notably, at dinner, the tablecloth is Romanian and the meal is a combination of Romanian cuisine and Canadian dishes (i.e. Romanian-style soup and barbequed chicken with home-made wine)

There are probably a fair number of Romanians already in the United Kingdom, but they perhaps "fly under the radar" because of their language skills, and are probably in technical, scientific or financial sector positions (the country usually is in the top three for the annual international mathematics Olympiad or are in the service industry positions). In many Toronto companies, the IT departments have a fair number of Romanians who are Microsoft certified and very capable.

I think Britain will be charmed and glad to have more Romanians after 2013.

Kevin WS says: "To the debate over east/west/central Europen I would simply observe that it is a cultural grouping rather than a geographical one, .."And that is the problem. Czechs (as me), Poles, etc. do not see themselves culturally part of Eastern Europe. We use Latin alphabet, we are not Orthodox, Prague was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire several times, etc. And then there was this unfortunate episode of being Soviet satellites... The expression just has too many connotations.So in sum - geographically it does not make sense and culturally it is offending. My advice would be to avoid it.

Was there ever a Europe? I know about the Hapsburgs, but that is about it, isn't it? I can understand the smaller weaker states from Eastern Europe wanting to join in on the fun and the money, but apart from Germany, Britain and France there really isn't much there. The only time I see Europe getting together is when they want to keep the Turks out, which is really religious bigotry. I have travelled a moderate amount in Eastern Europe and the proper European countries , and I think I know Europe when I see it !Actually, as an American Muslim, I could care less for a Union that defines itself solely by excluding Muslims. Maybe we should just let the Russians come in again !! Will you like them more than the Turks?

The comment from cs96 seems to ignore the fact that Britain was built on material stolen from the rest of what is referred to as the third world, especially India. So, in a way the Indian immigrants are coming to share in the proceeds. It is just as well that their expectations are low !